This is where theory and reality collide. In theory, B1 and B2 were born on the same day with the same exact genetics, then separated onto different ranches. This is where the first part of your experiment can fail...what type of nurturing did each receive for that first year, it makes a big difference based on research. Lets assume the exact same nurturing.

So then the next question becomes what is the physical stress component of the ranches comparatively. If one has increased predation, weather stressors, or other environmental stressors, this can impact the overall size of the deer, presumably in the early years but this would catch up in the middle aged years some and then be noticeable again in the aged years, with the more stressed buck being smaller and less antler than the less stressed buck.

The next question becomes how effective was the learned browsing behavior of B1 in granting maximal nutrition compared to B2. There is some possibility you could see the protein fed buck having a slightly lesser body stature simply because it hasn't had to learn effective browsing habits, but would the amount of protein consumed offset this? Hard to tell. Another area to consider are the minerals and trace elements present in the protein, and how that impacts deer body and (more importantly) antler size. My guess is unless there were viable minerals for both bucks, you would begin to see a difference in the protein fed deer getting bigger antlers simply from the minerals present over the years while the browsing deer will have some deficiencies in some minerals that would lead to less optimal antler growth. Again, hard to say for certain, but since the mineral component wasn't mentioned, it is a possibility. Given enough native browse variety, deer should not be overly mineral deficient. The body size and antler mass of deer in studies has always gone up in protein feeding situations, but this is also NOT in the face of ample and/or maximal native browse availability. It would be very interesting to study this in some controlled manner, unfortunately there exists no place in nature that has ample natural browse available.

there are more things to consider, but the biggest and most important issue to discuss is rut pressure, meaning how long and how hard do the bucks go into the season for rut activity. A buck that runs longer into the season due to way out of balance doe ratios is going to lose so much more body mass and future antler compared to one that doesn't have to run as long. This is the single most important variable in my mind that will impact body size and antler size differences at ages 4-7+

I am sure I am forgetting other stuff, but did I waffle enough for you?

I think he wants us to assume that every single thing is exactly the same except one gets protein.

If you don't believe supplemental feeding is to the betterment of a herd, then don't do it. I would request info on what detriment providing protein would cause to the herd and maybe I will see it here.

IF every other aspect of the two bucks life is the exact same, then research has absolutely shown year round free choice protein does benefit deer. How much in this hypothetical? I can not imagine much more than about 10-15%


But that is just a WAG not based on anything anyone could EVER prove.

I don't think you'd see that much of a difference if any at all. My belief is that natural forage/browse is superior and preferred by deer. There is no need to feed protein if you have ample natural forage/browse year round. Just my 2 cents for what that's worth.

Yeah, those grass-fed beefs mature so much faster and weigh so much more than those in a feedlot due to the boost of natural forage. And those NFL lineman are all eating kale salads and cottage cheese. Sorry, I woke up snarky, but you seriously don't think you'll see a difference?

Every animal in the known world benefits from easier food. Now, if you want to talk ROI on feeding protein to deer, I'm sure we'll have a similar opinion, but having fed cattle and sheep most of my life, the difference between fed and non-fed is very noticeable.

Not discounting the examples above, because those examples could be where some conclusions about deer could be drawn from, BUT....the OP question is similar to asking if a cow in a 30 acre pasture by itself (and maybe that needs to be bigger, I have read, and been told in casual convo of 10 acres being the minimum per head for enough pasture) and having plenty of available natural munchies for that one cow to eat its entire life over years.

The cow example is typically a bunch of cattle in a smaller than ideal environment and the fattening process takes place over a season or two max. Talking apples to oranges, but also more in line with what we see in Texas hunting lands where deer are over crowded, food is limited, so protein feeding is a huge help to the deer. NOT what the OP was asking.

Op's question is exactly how we treat lambs. They have a quality pasture with a good mother, but at the end of the day there is a protein creep feeder that they have access to with unlimited protein. There is a noticeable difference in both the amount of weight gained and how fast it is gained versus years where we chose not to feed protein supplement. If an animal can stand in one spot, even for 10 minutes, and ingest better food (more concentrated protein), versus having to walk and eat, it will come out ahead.

QSYB, that is exactly what I am talking about....that kind of info could give us some good insight into this question.

Do you have any idea the size gains in protein fed vs non-fed years?

I should have done a better job reading the OP's question. I was strictly referring to antler potential and not body weight. Genetics and range conditions determine the max potential of antlers. IF there are ideal range conditions then they should be reaching their potential in terms of antler growth. Thus, I don't believe protein will do much if anything for antler growth in the OP's scenario. As far as body weight, I don't think it's accurate to compare fattening up a beef cow in a lot to a free range deer in the wild. I would agree if we were talking about comparing fattening up a beef cow to a penned deer eating protein. Now I never considered that aspect of standing in one spot vs walking around for forage. I think QSYB could be on to something there.


We've have below average range conditions and have been feeding protein for 5 years. We go through about 1000 pounds a week and have seen a noticeable improvement in antler development but I have not noticed any change in average body weight for our mature bucks (I realize that is antidotal).

have fed protein on a large free range ranch for 15 years - we added cottonseed around 7-8 years ago.

IMO the difference supplemental feed makes (and makes it worth paying for) is during droughts when the natural browse is not there in abundance. This is where I think a person would see the advantage long term by feeding protein versus just natural browse.

I have also said for years that if I was on a ranch that could have irrigation in order to plant food plots I would take that over any other supplemental feed.

My experience after seeing hundreds of thousand game camera pictures at protein feeders is that deer in general will spend 10-20 minutes at a protein feeder versus spending hours in a food plot. They ingest way more in a field than at a feeder IMO.